NationStates Jolt Archive


Economic Power

Kervoskia
03-03-2005, 02:42
Who will suprass the US in economic power?
Mystic Mindinao
03-03-2005, 02:49
China. Their GDP doubles once every seven years, and they have nearly infinite potential for more growth. In fact, the miracle is that they aren't growing faster.
The EU is far too socialized and regulated to grow. Japan is too small to surpass the US, though it may do so in GDP/capita. Brazil is the only other one that may surpass the US, but only if Brazilians clean up their attitudes.
Kervoskia
03-03-2005, 02:50
I have a feeling I missed something important.
Europaland
03-03-2005, 02:50
I think the EU will exceed the USA's total economic power first but then both the USA and EU will eventually be exceeded by China.
Kervoskia
03-03-2005, 03:23
China. Their GDP doubles once every seven years, and they have nearly infinite potential for more growth. In fact, the miracle is that they aren't growing faster.

I wasn't aware it was that much.
Resistancia
03-03-2005, 03:35
i say australia, but..... i know china has a high growth rate, but it all depends on how much longer they last under a communist regiem(sp). the EU is growing, with member-states being added, and while some members are 'butting heads' atm, if ever they agree on something, their combined power is greater than that of the US
Mystic Mindinao
03-03-2005, 03:39
I wasn't aware it was that much.
Yeah. It did slow down slightly in the past ten years, but as we are seeing, growth is still impressive.
Alien Born
03-03-2005, 03:45
China. Their GDP doubles once every seven years, and they have nearly infinite potential for more growth. In fact, the miracle is that they aren't growing faster.
The EU is far too socialized and regulated to grow. Japan is too small to surpass the US, though it may do so in GDP/capita. Brazil is the only other one that may surpass the US, but only if Brazilians clean up their attitudes.

China. Check
EU. They already surpass the USA if you take the total economy. Per capita they do not, but gross they do.
Japan. Not likely unless the US bubble bursts big style and they manage to kick life back into theirs.

Brazil. What do you mean by clean up our attitudes? There are endemic problems with political corruption, but as this has not harmed the US economy I see no reason why it should harm the Brazilian economy in the long term. (I would prefer to see it dealt with, but it is diffficult to see how this could happen.) We have very strong international trade links with China, India, South Africa, Europe, the rest of South America, and only moderate links with the USA. When the US economy does collapse, it will not hit us the way it will hit MExico for example.
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 03:49
Who will suprass the US in economic power?


I think your assuming the United States will give this crown up. Now economic power is measured several ways. Banking Industry, GDP, and wealth of its citizens. Only current political group that could challenge us in all catagories is the EU. China has to go through a political upheavle yet. There banking system is less then perfect. I have had to deal with it. India is nowhere near challenging for the crown either. EU has alot of political hurdles to jump. They are the only contenders though.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 03:55
Economic power is not necessarily the same thing as Economic size. The United States is more economically powerful than Europe, even though Europe as a whole has a bigger GDP.

In the future my personal feelings rank China as being the #1 contender for replacing the United States. Following them I put a strong side bet on India and a weaker side bet on Brazil/South America as a whole. Of course 1,000 years ago I would have placed my bets on China as well but that wouldn't have worked out that well.

I do not see the EU going anywhere but down in the next 100 years. Immigration of unskilled laborers and refugees from east europe and the middle east. Collectively they are building up a welfare state. High unemployment. Add on to that that Europe is experiencing just about its longest period of peace since, um, ever. I don't really expect the European nations to remain all luvy-dubby for ever. Eventually the EU alliances will fall and the nations will once again turn against themselves, when that happens a stronger Europe might emerge but that won't be happening for a very long time.
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 03:55
China. Check
EU. They already surpass the USA if you take the total economy. Per capita they do not, but gross they do.


.


Actually not true. GDP of all of Europe is less then that of USA. You are correct on the second part. If anyone would like to post a link on accurate GDP feel free.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 03:58
I think your assuming the United States will give this crown up. Now economic power is measured several ways. Banking Industry, GDP, and wealth of its citizens. Only current political group that could challenge us in all catagories is the EU. China has to go through a political upheavle yet. There banking system is less then perfect. I have had to deal with it. India is nowhere near challenging for the crown either. EU has alot of political hurdles to jump. They are the only contenders though.

The EU is going down the tubes. But you need to think in terms of 100+ years, not 15 years. While I think China will become very powerful by 2020, I don't think the US will actually be in 2nd place at that point. I don't really think the US will be "replaced" till after 2095+.

The real kicker in all of this is that things change, drastically. Technology. People. Alliances. Borders. All of these things change drastically and sometimes quickly. And any kind of change in technology could render anything any of us say obsolete.
Maebashi
03-03-2005, 04:03
China will eventually surpass the US. Their population will always be larger than ours, and their economy has a lot of room to grow. Japan's economy has room to grow, too, after a decade-long recession. They could also be much stronger in the service sector than they are now. Their economy would have to more than triple to catch up to the US's. I could see their economy growing some if the US economy declines and the Japanese took over some of the US's market share. Since the United States absorbs about 25% of Japan's trade, however, any decline in the US economy would mostly hurt the Japanese economy.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:04
Actually not true. GDP of all of Europe is less then that of USA. You are correct on the second part. If anyone would like to post a link on accurate GDP feel free.

The GDPs are so close that it is um, kind pointless to argue whose is larger IMO.

/edit/ well ok, maybe there is some point. The 2004 US GDP was 11.735 trillion. and the 2004 EU GDP was 11.05 Trillion.

Obtained via the CIA world factbook and the http://www.bea.doc.gov
Alien Born
03-03-2005, 04:06
Actually not true. GDP of all of Europe is less then that of USA. You are correct on the second part. If anyone would like to post a link on accurate GDP feel free.

Figures from CIA World Factbook

GDP USA purchasing power parity - $10.99 trillion
GDP EU purchasing power parity - $11.05 trillion

As I said, it is larger, by the US agencies own figures. but what is a mere 60 billion anyway. Let us say that they are equivalent.
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:06
point. I don't really think the US will be "replaced" till after 2095+.

.


Well some models for population pin the pop for USA at 600 million in 2095. I have seen some models actually equal out USA and China population past 2100. These countries with huge populations will wain. There is going to be a great equaling out effect the next couple hundred years. The crown for the long haul will be the nation that has the most rescources,education levels,type of governement and economic control.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:08
Figures from CIA World Factbook

GDP USA purchasing power parity - $10.99 trillion
GDP EU purchasing power parity - $11.05 trillion

As I said, it is larger, by the US agencies own figures. but what is a mere 60 billion anyway. Let us say that they are equivalent.

And you are wrong.

The figure for teh EU is 2004, the figure for the USA is 2003. Nice try though.
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:10
Well I will meet you at agree there close. Instead of raising you a link.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:10
Well some models for population pin the pop for USA at 600 billion in 2095. I have seen some models actually equal out USA and China population past 2100. These countries with huge populations will wain. There is going to be a great equaling out effect the next couple hundred years. The crown for the long haul will be the nation that has the most rescources,education levels,type of governement and economic control.

I don't buy any model that will tell me that the US's population will be 600 billion in 2095. I've got a feeling that is an exponential model that doesn't take into account any kind of carrying capacity, food supply etc...
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:15
I don't buy any model that will tell me that the US's population will be 600 billion in 2095. I've got a feeling that is an exponential model that doesn't take into account any kind of carrying capacity, food supply etc...

In which the capacity for US food production is HUGE. Potential US carrying capacity is there nearly already. Matter of building more housing units. The studies that I have read is that US pop will grow mainly due to immigration flows. China will curtail due to economic emergence. India will be the same as China. Now I know we can probably agree that economic emergence will slow the population of any given country to a near stop. Westren countries have been doing this for awhile.
With the factors of Chinas population controls. Even China's government wants a pop at around 600-700 million for maximum growth. They say this in China. This figure could be realistic. Now let me scrounge around tonight and I may make a post with links and good stuff showing population projections.
Alien Born
03-03-2005, 04:17
And you are wrong.

The figure for teh EU is 2004, the figure for the USA is 2003. Nice try though.

Ooops, I honestly did not notice that. Sorry.
The second point still applies though. That for all intents and purposes they can be treated as equal. There is not going to have been more than 3% growth in 2004 which moves the USA to about 11.3 trillion. No significant difference between the two figures.
Pure Metal
03-03-2005, 04:19
unless Europe can get its act together, its going to be China in about 30 years time, as both the US and EU have a massive head start. well thats what my international relations tutor said and i think he knows what he's talking about, anyway.

i say Europe needs further economic integration and to work towards a federal state as soon as possible.
Alien Born
03-03-2005, 04:20
In which the capacity for US food production is HUGE. Potential US carrying capacity is there nearly already. . . .
With the factors of Chinas population controls. Even China's government wants a pop at around 600-700 million for maximum growth. They say this in China. This figure could be realistic. Now let me scrounge around tonight and I may make a post with links and good stuff showing population projections.

The problem with a population of 600 Billion would be energy. There simply is not enough to support this population in the USA. 600 million is more reasonable. I think you may have accidentally multiplied the number by a thousand.
Kerubia
03-03-2005, 04:20
Well, the EU already have, but I don't think you'll find a single political scientist that will try to claim the EU as a unified nation, so in that case, the only nation I can see in surpassing the American economic power is China.

The Dragon isn't as powerful as the Eagle, but it does have a damn big hoard of treasure.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:20
Ooops, I honestly did not notice that. Sorry.
The second point still applies though. That for all intents and purposes they can be treated as equal. There is not going to have been more than 3% growth in 2004 which moves the USA to about 11.3 trillion. No significant difference between the two figures.

http://www.bea.doc.gov disagrees with you, citing a GDP of 11.733 trillon for the USA.

As I posted Earlier.

2004 GDP, USA: 11.733 trillion
2004 GDP, EU: 11.05 trillion
Kerubia
03-03-2005, 04:22
http://www.bea.doc.gov disagrees with you, citing a GDP of 11.733 trillon for the USA.

As I posted Earlier.

2004 GDP, USA: 11.733 trillion
2004 GDP, EU: 11.05 trillion

It looks like my above post has been corrected.
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:23
The problem with a population of 600 Billion would be energy. There simply is not enough to support this population in the USA. 600 million is more reasonable. I think you may have accidentally multiplied the number by a thousand.


Lol well that was a typo on my part. Excuse me then. I will "fix" my post. Correction made.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:25
In which the capacity for US food production is HUGE. Potential US carrying capacity is there nearly already. Matter of building more housing units. The studies that I have read is that US pop will grow mainly due to immigration flows. China will curtail due to economic emergence. India will be the same as China. Now I know we can probably agree that economic emergence will slow the population of any given country to a near stop. Westren countries have been doing this for awhile.
With the factors of Chinas population controls. Even China's government wants a pop at around 600-700 million for maximum growth. They say this in China. This figure could be realistic. Now let me scrounge around tonight and I may make a post with links and good stuff showing population projections.
Total size of the US 9,631,418 sq km, including water.
With a population of 600 Billion we would have 62,296 people per sq km.

The population density of New York City is 10194.2/km²

So, we'll have gigantic, cramped, Skyscrapers covering all the land, and water, of the United States?

/edit/ Ahh, good you did make a typo. /edit/
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:26
Total size of the US 9,631,418 sq km, including water.
With a population of 600 Billion we would have 62,296 people per sq km.

The population density of New York City is 10194.2/km²

So, we'll have gigantic, cramped, Sky Scrapes covering all the land, and water, of the United States?


622961229.59256882008443616505898

Yes yes I fixed my Billion/million typo. So adjust figures accordingly. Thanks
Alien Born
03-03-2005, 04:27
http://www.bea.doc.gov disagrees with you, citing a GDP of 11.733 trillon for the USA.

As I posted Earlier.

2004 GDP, USA: 11.733 trillion
2004 GDP, EU: 11.05 trillion

Fine. I could argue, and many would, that GDP is only comparable if it is measured in the same way. However I will accept your figures and say that the GDP of Europe, (not the EU) is larger than that of the USA, whilst that of the USA is larger than that of the EU. All very irrelevant in the long term, as I actually see China, India and Brazil as being the likely future dominant economic powers. Not the EU or the USA. (Their times are passing).
Trancemetropolitan
03-03-2005, 04:29
You appear to be just looking at the numbers without looking at a few underlying assumptions that seriously affect the outcomes all of these...

the biggest is that the US has been built on cheap oil. this permeates every level of US society - most importantly it's transport, population distribution, food production and over-expenditure on it's military. Once the world passes peak oil, huge swathes of america will fall apart. The suburban lifestyle adopted by more than half of the american population is unworkable without cheap transport. the food supply is wholly dependant on oil based fertilisers for production and is rarely prodiced locally, instead relying on cheap transport to move it around. A huge amount of US crops are grown on soil that is, to all intents and purposes, a dead sponge for petrochemical fertilisers.

As the oil runs out the US will pour more and more of it's waning assets into secureing foreign oil - a costly and harmful war of which iraq is one of the first major battles. In 50 years the US will be falling apart.

Add to this the unstoppable climate change and we will be looking at mass starvation throught the world.

i digress... the key point i want to make is that the entire global economic structure has been based on a system of infinite growth. It;s worked very well up until now, but as we hit the carrying capacity of the planet we need an economic model that functions in stable mode, and once the irreversible climate change kicks in we need economic models that function in a time of shrinkage. Niether the US nor China are making any concessions to this model of the next 100-200 years, which give europe an advantage...
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:30
Anyway then, with adjusted figures

62.3 would be the people per sq km. MUCH more reasonable. ;)

Anyway yes, 600 million by 2095 sounds right. At the same time I think the final eventual population number for the US was 10-30 billion or so. Of course I did that calculation a few weeks ago and it is based off a very primitive logistical growth models obtained via a calc class. Either way the USA will eventually have a population in the Billions.
LovAmore
03-03-2005, 04:30
I agree with Mystica :)
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:31
Anyway then, with adjusted figures

62.3 would be the people per sq km. MUCH more reasonable. ;)

Anyway yes, 600 million by 2095 sounds right. At the same time I think the final eventual population number for the US was 10-30 billion or so. Of course I did that calculation a few weeks ago and it is based off a very primitive logistical growth models obtained via a calc class. Either way the USA will eventually have a population in the Billions.


Lol I see why you started aruing the fact. Yes I agree about US pop. Hopefully not in my lifetime though.
Marrakech II
03-03-2005, 04:33
You appear to be just looking at the numbers without looking at a few underlying assumptions that seriously affect the outcomes all of these...

the biggest is that the US has been built on cheap oil. this permeates every level of US society - most importantly it's transport, population distribution, food production and over-expenditure on it's military. Once the world passes peak oil, huge swathes of america will fall apart. The suburban lifestyle adopted by more than half of the american population is unworkable without cheap transport. the food supply is wholly dependant on oil based fertilisers for production and is rarely prodiced locally, instead relying on cheap transport to move it around. A huge amount of US crops are grown on soil that is, to all intents and purposes, a dead sponge for petrochemical fertilisers.

As the oil runs out the US will pour more and more of it's waning assets into secureing foreign oil - a costly and harmful war of which iraq is one of the first major battles. In 50 years the US will be falling apart.

Add to this the unstoppable climate change and we will be looking at mass starvation throught the world.

i digress... the key point i want to make is that the entire global economic structure has been based on a system of infinite growth. It;s worked very well up until now, but as we hit the carrying capacity of the planet we need an economic model that functions in stable mode, and once the irreversible climate change kicks in we need economic models that function in a time of shrinkage. Niether the US nor China are making any concessions to this model of the next 100-200 years, which give europe an advantage...

Well thought out here.I agree Probelm is that we dont know the true scope of the climate change yet. Could have alot of unseen consequences.
Salvondia
03-03-2005, 04:39
You appear to be just looking at the numbers without looking at a few underlying assumptions that seriously affect the outcomes all of these...

Yes yes, quite nice...

the biggest is that the US has been built on cheap oil. this permeates every level of US society - most importantly it's transport, population distribution, food production and over-expenditure on it's military. Once the world passes peak oil, huge swathes of america will fall apart. The suburban lifestyle adopted by more than half of the american population is unworkable without cheap transport. the food supply is wholly dependant on oil based fertilisers for production and is rarely prodiced locally, instead relying on cheap transport to move it around. A huge amount of US crops are grown on soil that is, to all intents and purposes, a dead sponge for petrochemical fertilisers.

And the entire WORLD is dependent on that same thing. If it will cause the US to fall, the entire world will be falling at the same time. That means the USA, China, the EU. Japan especially. Lets not forget about India, Russia, Africa, South America, Australia. The whole damned world will fall if we can’t find a replacement for oil. Personally I don’t think its going to end up being much of a problem at all.

As the oil runs out the US will pour more and more of it's waning assets into secureing foreign oil - a costly and harmful war of which iraq is one of the first major battles. In 50 years the US will be falling apart.

Really? You know where we get most of our oil? Mexico, Canada. If we need to get more oil fast, that’s where we will go.

Add to this the unstoppable climate change and we will be looking at mass starvation throught the world.

Yeppers, cause you know, its ALL bad. Its not, um, good for some parts and bad for others? Climate change, and we're near the end of the warming anyway, in earth's timescale anyway, affects different areas of the planet different. Mass starvation is just as likely as gigantic increases in the amount of farmable land.

i digress... the key point i want to make is that the entire global economic structure has been based on a system of infinite growth. It;s worked very well up until now, but as we hit the carrying capacity of the planet we need an economic model that functions in stable mode, and once the irreversible climate change kicks in we need economic models that function in a time of shrinkage. Niether the US nor China are making any concessions to this model of the next 100-200 years, which give europe an advantage...

We aren't even close to hitting the carrying capacity of the planet... Never mind that you REALLY need to look at some ice core graphs that go back 400k years or so. You'll find this nice up and down pattern. Cheers.
Mystic Mindinao
04-03-2005, 00:40
Brazil. What do you mean by clean up our attitudes? There are endemic problems with political corruption, but as this has not harmed the US economy I see no reason why it should harm the Brazilian economy in the long term. (I would prefer to see it dealt with, but it is diffficult to see how this could happen.) We have very strong international trade links with China, India, South Africa, Europe, the rest of South America, and only moderate links with the USA. When the US economy does collapse, it will not hit us the way it will hit MExico for example.
First, you seem sure that the US economy is on the way to collapse. Not even decline, but collapse. Why?
Secondly, Brazil has several problems. There is mismanagement of Brazil's natuural resources. Crime is rampant, and the police are either unable or unwilling to do something about it. There is the fondness of military influence, corruption, socialists, fascisits, nationalists, and the list goes on and on.
Swimmingpool
04-03-2005, 00:47
I think the EU will exceed the USA's total economic power first but then both the USA and EU will eventually be exceeded by China.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you.
Isanyonehome
04-03-2005, 00:56
China. Their GDP doubles once every seven years, and they have nearly infinite potential for more growth. In fact, the miracle is that they aren't growing faster.
The EU is far too socialized and regulated to grow. Japan is too small to surpass the US, though it may do so in GDP/capita. Brazil is the only other one that may surpass the US, but only if Brazilians clean up their attitudes.

funny, thats what everyone said about Japan Inc in the 1980s. I believed it then too.

Thats the thing about truly free markets(neither Japan then nor China now are), they can stick and move. Meaning, they are robust and can re align themselves with less transitional costs and time. "Managed" economies like Japan then(less so now) and China now and for a long time are great at taking advantage of some type of situations better than relatively open economies, but they cant roll with the punches as well or as quickly.
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 01:02
Hmmm im surprised people have not been mentioning india.

I personally think india will outpace china eventually and here is why.

China's economy is a MASSIVE bubble economy. The booming economy is based on contruction.

No where else in the world do you build for profit like you do in china. Without any tenants in place you pound out property because you know the massive market for real estate will allow you take a huge profit. Eventually, this will dry up and people will realize that the average chinese has 1/20 the purchasing power of someone in a developing country and the economy will implode.

Untill then holy real estate profits! A chinese friend of mine bought into a condo - commerical project 3 years ago near macao, which is not even that hot of a area supposedly, he has a 400% profit in 3 years from selling that property. The thing is the commerical was never leased and they actually took a lose on the day to day operations of the complex. But they knew they would gain a massive profit from the sale of the property so they held on and cashed in.


India has less of a bubble economy and slower growth so I think it will not run into this problem...
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 01:02
First, you seem sure that the US economy is on the way to collapse. Not even decline, but collapse. Why?
Secondly, Brazil has several problems. There is mismanagement of Brazil's natuural resources. Crime is rampant, and the police are either unable or unwilling to do something about it. There is the fondness of military influence, corruption, socialists, fascisits, nationalists, and the list goes on and on.

I had not noticed half of this in the seven years I have lived here.
Crime: There are drug gang wars in Rio, In the favelas. There are drug gang wars in Chicago, Washington, L.A, NYC. In the poorer regions of these cities. Other than that crime here is not a serious problem.

Mismanagement of natural resources. Ah by this you mean that we refuse to use our resources as the NGOs would like. True. The eco-nazis can go deal with the problem in their own countries. (Don't get me started on that in this thread, it deserves a thread of its own). Oil, we have, in smallish quantities, but we are almost self sufficient due to careful management of power resources. (Yes we have power problems if it does not rain for a couple of years, but even that is being dealt with now.)

We are twenty years out of a US backed military dictatorship. There are some older folk who, looking through rose tinted glasses think that life was better under the dictatorship, but they are regarded by the majority as bordering on the insane. There is no love of the military here. There is respect for our current soldiers (drafted), but no fondness of military influence.

Corruption is the same here as anywhere else. Put people in power and some of them become corrupt. There is a problem with the judiciary, but as these are now to be regularly audited by international tribunals, this problem is on its way out. Can you say the same about where you live?

Socialists, we have, following the British New Labour model of "socialism". Radical socialists we have a few of. They make a lot of noise and are considerd mostly to be comic entertainment. Fascists. I do not know of any fascist movement here. It may exist as we are a democracy with free speech, and freedom of political ideologies. If it does it ius far from being an influential movement.

Nationalists? Are you American? If so what on earth are you doing calling the kettle black? If not, then nowhere near as nationalist as most countries. We are proud of our country but just that. Oh, and we had better beat Argentina at football.

Regarding my pessimistic view of the USA. Look at the figures. The economic figures. The balance of trade, the budget deficit, the new job creation figures (exclude government jobs from this, as they just weigh on the economy.) etc. I have reason to be pessimistic. If the USA wanted to borrow money from the IMF, which it may well have to do soon, it will not meet the fiscal standards that the IMF sets. When the total amount of personal credit issued in one year in a country is of the same order of magnitude as the total personal earnings in a country, then you have to worry about the health of the economy. It is one big bubble. It may be possible to slowly deflate it, but this would be political suicide there. So it just keeps getting filled with more hot air. One day soon. BANG.

All of this is of course my opinion. Some parts (Brazil) fairly well directly informed, other parts (The USA) dependant upon information from international sources.
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 01:04
First, you seem sure that the US economy is on the way to collapse. Not even decline, but collapse. Why?
Secondly, Brazil has several problems. There is mismanagement of Brazil's natuural resources. Crime is rampant, and the police are either unable or unwilling to do something about it. There is the fondness of military influence, corruption, socialists, fascisits, nationalists, and the list goes on and on.


not to mention the entire region's economy is basically imploding with all the weird socialist government around.

I would place the EU, indonesa, india, china, even russia ahead of brazil...
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 01:11
not to mention the entire region's economy is basically imploding with all the weird socialist government around.

I would place the EU, indonesa, india, china, even russia ahead of brazil...

It is amazing how readily you believe the right wing press. I myself am economically right of centre. I voted for Thatcher when I lived in the UK. The economy here is about as left wing and socialist as it is in the UK under new labour. i.e. not at all. I was worried when Lula came to power, but his actions have made this worry meaningless. He has simply kept the economic policies of FHC in place.
What PT (O Partido dos Trabalhadores) is doing, is to direct money away from elitist causes toward popular causes. This means that the big media conglomerates no longer get the tax breaks and government sponsorship that they have enjoyed since the dictatorship.
The whole region is not Brazil. Does Canada's prime minister's political position havew any real effect on the USA. No. The same applies here with regard to Chavez and Uruguay.
Mystic Mindinao
04-03-2005, 01:16
I had not noticed half of this in the seven years I have lived here.
Crime: There are drug gang wars in Rio, In the favelas. There are drug gang wars in Chicago, Washington, L.A, NYC. In the poorer regions of these cities. Other than that crime here is not a serious problem.

Mismanagement of natural resources. Ah by this you mean that we refuse to use our resources as the NGOs would like. True. The eco-nazis can go deal with the problem in their own countries. (Don't get me started on that in this thread, it deserves a thread of its own). Oil, we have, in smallish quantities, but we are almost self sufficient due to careful management of power resources. (Yes we have power problems if it does not rain for a couple of years, but even that is being dealt with now.)

We are twenty years out of a US backed military dictatorship. There are some older folk who, looking through rose tinted glasses think that life was better under the dictatorship, but they are regarded by the majority as bordering on the insane. There is no love of the military here. There is respect for our current soldiers (drafted), but no fondness of military influence.

Corruption is the same here as anywhere else. Put people in power and some of them become corrupt. There is a problem with the judiciary, but as these are now to be regularly audited by international tribunals, this problem is on its way out. Can you say the same about where you live?

Socialists, we have, following the British New Labour model of "socialism". Radical socialists we have a few of. They make a lot of noise and are considerd mostly to be comic entertainment. Fascists. I do not know of any fascist movement here. It may exist as we are a democracy with free speech, and freedom of political ideologies. If it does it ius far from being an influential movement.

Nationalists? Are you American? If so what on earth are you doing calling the kettle black? If not, then nowhere near as nationalist as most countries. We are proud of our country but just that. Oh, and we had better beat Argentina at football.

Regarding my pessimistic view of the USA. Look at the figures. The economic figures. The balance of trade, the budget deficit, the new job creation figures (exclude government jobs from this, as they just weigh on the economy.) etc. I have reason to be pessimistic. If the USA wanted to borrow money from the IMF, which it may well have to do soon, it will not meet the fiscal standards that the IMF sets. When the total amount of personal credit issued in one year in a country is of the same order of magnitude as the total personal earnings in a country, then you have to worry about the health of the economy. It is one big bubble. It may be possible to slowly deflate it, but this would be political suicide there. So it just keeps getting filled with more hot air. One day soon. BANG.

All of this is of course my opinion. Some parts (Brazil) fairly well directly informed, other parts (The USA) dependant upon information from international sources.

Being an American talking to a Latino, why should I reply? All of my points will be disregarded by you based on this.
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 01:21
You appear to be just looking at the numbers without looking at a few underlying assumptions that seriously affect the outcomes all of these...

the biggest is that the US has been built on cheap oil. this permeates every level of US society - most importantly it's transport, population distribution, food production and over-expenditure on it's military. Once the world passes peak oil, huge swathes of america will fall apart. The suburban lifestyle adopted by more than half of the american population is unworkable without cheap transport. the food supply is wholly dependant on oil based fertilisers for production and is rarely prodiced locally, instead relying on cheap transport to move it around. A huge amount of US crops are grown on soil that is, to all intents and purposes, a dead sponge for petrochemical fertilisers.

As the oil runs out the US will pour more and more of it's waning assets into secureing foreign oil - a costly and harmful war of which iraq is one of the first major battles. In 50 years the US will be falling apart.

Add to this the unstoppable climate change and we will be looking at mass starvation throught the world.

i digress... the key point i want to make is that the entire global economic structure has been based on a system of infinite growth. It;s worked very well up until now, but as we hit the carrying capacity of the planet we need an economic model that functions in stable mode, and once the irreversible climate change kicks in we need economic models that function in a time of shrinkage. Niether the US nor China are making any concessions to this model of the next 100-200 years, which give europe an advantage...


well one hole in your theory is that canada has almost as much oil as the saudis do...
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 01:25
It is amazing how readily you believe the right wing press. I myself am economically right of centre. I voted for Thatcher when I lived in the UK. The economy here is about as left wing and socialist as it is in the UK under new labour. i.e. not at all. I was worried when Lula came to power, but his actions have made this worry meaningless. He has simply kept the economic policies of FHC in place.
What PT (O Partido dos Trabalhadores) is doing, is to direct money away from elitist causes toward popular causes. This means that the big media conglomerates no longer get the tax breaks and government sponsorship that they have enjoyed since the dictatorship.
The whole region is not Brazil. Does Canada's prime minister's political position havew any real effect on the USA. No. The same applies here with regard to Chavez and Uruguay.


well canada's economic policy does have a effect on the usa, just not to the same extent that the economic policies of the rest of south america would have towards brazil.

canada has 1/10 the population of the states but if it was to suddenly cork off the oil flow, you would see some problems.

Brazil has what 250 million people and the rest of south america has what 200 million people? (rough guess) Im thinking the polices of the rest of south america would have a larger effect on brazil...
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 01:27
Being an American talking to a Latino, why should I reply? All of my points will be disregarded by you based on this.

Because I am not a Latino, if that assuages your racist conscience. I am ashamed to say that we probably have ancestors in common, but then you are just evidence that even good genetic material can be corrupted. Have fun in your blinkered ignorance.
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 01:37
well canada's economic policy does have a effect on the usa, just not to the same extent that the economic policies of the rest of south america would have towards brazil.

canada has 1/10 the population of the states but if it was to suddenly cork off the oil flow, you would see some problems.

Brazil has what 250 million people and the rest of south america has what 200 million people? (rough guess) Im thinking the polices of the rest of south america would have a larger effect on brazil...

Brazil has about 200 million at the moment (exact figures are hard to come by.) The rest of South america has about 100 million. Of these Argentina and Chile have some 56 million. Neither of these have particularly leftist governments (Argentina is an economic criple at the moment, and has no real effect on our economy.)

Brazil is not dependent upon any South american country for anything. Import or export. Their economies help us if they are good and hinder if they are bad only in that they affect the perception of the region.

Remember that Brazil is isolated in South America anyway by speaking Portuguese not Spanish. This has driven us to forge economic alliances all over the world, not just locally. Our current largest trading partner is the EU.

Politically we are affected by changes in the region, but only in that the politics here tends to be very Latin (not surprisingly) and based on personal relationships. So a change of head of state somewhere here means the loss of an old friendship (or emnity) and a lot of work to create a new friendship.
Mystic Mindinao
04-03-2005, 01:40
Because I am not a Latino, if that assuages your racist conscience. I am ashamed to say that we probably have ancestors in common, but then you are just evidence that even good genetic material can be corrupted. Have fun in your blinkered ignorance.
Why not? Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 01:41
Why not? Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

If only that were true my friend, if only.
Mystic Mindinao
04-03-2005, 01:44
If only that were true my friend, if only.
But iit is. You guys in Brazil know too much. You are unhappy because of that. Me? Well, I can't exactly be called happy, either. But at least I can go on with my mundane little life, and not be annoyed by the outside world.
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 01:47
But iit is. You guys in Brazil know too much. You are unhappy because of that. Me? Well, I can't exactly be called happy, either. But at least I can go on with my mundane little life, and not be annoyed by the outside world.

Do I detect a slight dusting of sarcasm here?
If you do not want to be annoyed by the outside world, why on earth are you posting on NS general? Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist about this conflict between your desires and your actions?
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 01:49
Its tough to get english data on brazil actually.

From what I can tell

20% of brazil's trade goes to EU
20% to south america
20% to USA
15% to china/japan
5% to other

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 01:52
Brazil only has a pop of 180 million and indonesa has 238, i did not know that. :)

Brazil's per capitia GDP is twice that of india or indonesa, and greater than china.

Brazil's economy shrunk in 2003 though...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/id.html


EDIT: learning is fun and kills time at work ;)
Mystic Mindinao
04-03-2005, 01:54
Do I detect a slight dusting of sarcasm here?
If you do not want to be annoyed by the outside world, why on earth are you posting on NS general? Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist about this conflict between your desires and your actions?
I detect a slight hatred here. Why me, I don't know. Is it because you assume that I am a white male? Or an American? Or something else?
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 02:21
Its tough to get english data on brazil actually.

From what I can tell

20% of brazil's trade goes to EU
20% to south america
20% to USA
15% to china/japan
5% to other

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html

Not only in English, it is just as bad in Portuguese. I was stating something from memory of a report that I saw in one of the equivalents of Newsweek here. Iy showed the EU as having some 28% (as I remember, I no longer have the issue, and as I am not a suscriber I can't get it from the web), the US at about 20%, Mercosul (South American NAFTA) at 18% and then bits and pieces in the order of 5 to 8% for China, India, South Africa and others.
It is comparable with the figures the CIA are giving (do you have a date on those. The world factbook has tripped me up already in this thread by mixing its dates.)
Jaythewise
04-03-2005, 02:26
Not only in English, it is just as bad in Portuguese. I was stating something from memory of a report that I saw in one of the equivalents of Newsweek here. Iy showed the EU as having some 28% (as I remember, I no longer have the issue, and as I am not a suscriber I can't get it from the web), the US at about 20%, Mercosul (South American NAFTA) at 18% and then bits and pieces in the order of 5 to 8% for China, India, South Africa and others.
It is comparable with the figures the CIA are giving (do you have a date on those. The world factbook has tripped me up already in this thread by mixing its dates.)


2003 i think :(

still interesting though.

I think brazil will be one of the big league players in the world, just behind india, china, eu, usa, maybe indonesa.

canada needs to strengthen trade ties with brazil instead of having trade disputes...
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 02:28
I detect a slight hatred here. Why me, I don't know. Is it because you assume that I am a white male? Or an American? Or something else?

Well, I am a white male, so I don't think that would be a cause to hate you. Maybe just a little resentment at your complete disdain for the effort of others in replying to a biased and prejudiced post could explain my tendency toward sarcasm. I really, could not care less if you were a green transexual venusian. It is the arrogance of someone who can post:
Being an American talking to a Latino, why should I reply? All of my points will be disregarded by you based on this. that may be at the root of my disrespect.
Alien Born
04-03-2005, 02:30
2003 i think :(

still interesting though.

I think brazil will be one of the big league players in the world, just behind india, china, eu, usa, maybe indonesa.

canada needs to strengthen trade ties with brazil instead of having trade disputes...

It would be good for both of our countries. I think we should be able to move beyond Bombadier vs Embraer by now.
Mystic Mindinao
04-03-2005, 02:33
Well, I am a white male, so I don't think that would be a cause to hate you. Maybe just a little resentment at your complete disdain for the effort of others in replying to a biased and prejudiced post could explain my tendency toward sarcasm. I really, could not care less if you were a green transexual venusian. It is the arrogance of someone who can post:

Fine. But as you are from Brazil, I am justified in thinking this. Brazilians, or anyone that I don't work with, are mere abstractions, of little or no insignificance to me. Why should I be concerned if you guys are black, or Hispanic, or some form of a toad? Brazil doesn't affect my life, so I don't care. In fact, most people don't affect my life.
Stephistan
04-03-2005, 02:35
I think mostly China, but I wouldn't discount the EU either.
Mazomanie
04-03-2005, 02:44
Some country or combination of countries may someday surpass the US in terms of GDP, but it won't happen during this century.

The US is extraordinarily cohesive (nationalistic) and homogenous (culturally) compared to these other societies on the list. Japan is #2 for these same reasons. How many languages do they speak in the EU? In China?, in India? These factors and the entreprenurial spirit will keep the USA on top indefinitely.
Trilateral Commission
04-03-2005, 02:47
Some country or combination of countries may someday surpass the US in terms of GDP, but it won't happen during this century.

The US is extraordinarily cohesive (nationalistic) and homogenous (culturally) compared to these other societies on the list. Japan is #2 for these same reasons. How many languages do they speak in the EU? In China?, in India? These factors and the entreprenurial spirit will keep the USA on top indefinitely.
Nearly all Chinese are able to speak a single language - Mandarin. Also, socialism has placed constraints on economic growth in the US and Europe, so China will probably see the fastest entrepreneurial/industrial expansion because there are no minimum wage laws, little environmental controls, and low business taxes.
Compuq
04-03-2005, 03:51
China will most likely surpass the US in GDP between 2035-2045. Main reasons for this.

- Large population
- The Government is pro-economic growth and fighting corruption
- Massive foreign investment.
- A consumer culture is rapidly taking hold.
- A transportation network second only to the US at this point.

India will be another nation to surpass the US later on this century. Though this is nothing to worry about. The US will remain one of the largest economies for the next century.